51. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97893 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Apology accepted.

You're welcome!

52. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97858 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 6:09 pm

"We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."-Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

53. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97845 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 5:48 pm

If you insist.

You made the assertion, you prove it.

Hurry up, Scotty.

54. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97837 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Beam ME up, Scotty.

Click on the link in #432 for some examples of U.S. intervention.

No wonder they're pissed at us.

55. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97828 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Your assertion that I was constructing a straw man is a poorly constructed straw man.

CLICK HERE

56. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97803 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm

That's real nice.

Did you stop reading at that sentence?

I said it was simplistic.

Like that "Imagine No Religion" sign/poster.

57. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97784 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Where's the dead end? Don't lesbians still have kids?

58. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97763 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Imagine no western intervention in mid-east politics.

Kind of simplistic, but nothing is black and white.

59. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97642 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 1:18 pm

"We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."-Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

60. Believe it or not

Comment #97398 by BMMcArdle on December 12, 2007 at 2:52 am

Time is on our side.
We are all doing our part to ease the suffering caused by the disease of religion.
It is a slow, but sure process.

61. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97306 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Nothing does more to promote human rights, science and goodwill than waiting 359 years for a tepid apology for the persecution of Galileo.

62. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #97293 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 9:10 pm

I believe in reason, I have faith in humanity.

63. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97063 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 10:59 am

I didn't tell a lie, I told a 'truthful myth'!

64. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97057 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 10:52 am

What's really funny is how your God Goggles distort your perception of the data presented to you.
The article describes how the overwhelming mountain of evidence of evolution is getting larger all the time.
Yet all you see is a hole.

Thanks for the link.

Golf bless you.

65. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #96868 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 3:02 am

You can be saved, but only if you are damned first.

As to the physician, I say suture self.

66. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #96844 by BMMcArdle on December 11, 2007 at 2:20 am

Instead of being born again, why not just grow up? ~Author Unknown

67. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #96568 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Teach us about ethics.

68. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96541 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 5:32 pm

One of my golfing buddies, an older guy (65), who teaches 'religion' at a local catholic school part-time, told me he went to see the movie on saturday night. He started by saying that the church had a problem with it, but after watching it, he couldn't tell what the fuss was all about. He talked about the special effects, and how each character had their own animal and such. But the funny part was that after he and his wife left the movie, he asked her what it was about. "Um, a polar bear?" was her reply, which is exactly how he felt about it.

69. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96489 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Well what do you know?
70's Coke commercial

(NOT questioning what anybody knows, its just an expression of suprise-Well whadda you know?)

70. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96482 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 3:50 pm

How about one of them Coke commercials from the 70's:
"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect har-mo-ny....."

71. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96460 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I am in favor of a more reasoned and sensitve approach to deprogramming the religious. I don't think offending is the way to do it. You are more likely to get a knee-jerk defensive reaction with negative displays like this.
That religion alone is responsible for 9/11 is too simplistic an explanation. World politics are too complex to be reduced to a simple statement like that.
If religion didn't exist, would that mean that nationalism and capitalism wouldn't exist also?
People are capable of doing nasty things in the name of these also. I'm sure there have been atheists in all of the wars throughout history, who gave their lives for their nation, for the sake of their people.
The song is not just about religion. It's about nationalism, materialism and communism.

Imagine there's no Heaven
Imagine there's no countries
Imagine no possessions

That's the message of the song.

72. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96339 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Pa rum pum pum pum, on my bum.

73. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #96309 by BMMcArdle on December 10, 2007 at 10:38 am

I just realized that you put MY name to something YOU wrote! In your comment #95941 (HERE), you place my name before the sentence "Though it may give me a hint" as if I wrote it.
It is from your comment #95594 (HERE).
The entire response, by YOU is:

"I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?

Though it may give a hint"

74. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96072 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Why is this even a question?

75. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95999 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:42 pm

And I answered your questions HERE in comment #156.

To which you replied in comment #158:

"I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?

Though it may give a hint"

76. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95996 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm

And for others, I promise not to scratch this particular scab any further

77. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95987 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I'm a scab?

You say nothing about me, but a lot about yourself.

78. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95978 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Why are your questions worded like insults?
Leave me to my slumbers? Are you trying to insult me again? It's 6:25PM here.
Can't finish what you started?
You can end it, with a simple statement.

79. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95973 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

You didn't hijack it, you just went into hysterics over a humorous quote by an aging rock-star and my simple statement of fact.

80. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95952 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

So what? If babies tasted delicious would that justify eating them too?

What about cats or dogs?

Tell me, if cutting a piece of flesh off a live cow tasted far more delicious then eating the piece of flesh off a dead one, would you have no objection?

I imagine rape, for the rapist, may well be a very pleasureable experience, hardly justifies it though.

Not unless one is a complete barbarian

81. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95928 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?

Though it may give a hint

82. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95913 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

You're the one who has painted yourself into a corner, you are responsible for getting yourself out of it.
Always think carefully before you hit the submit button, as what you write may come back and bite you in the ass.

83. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95860 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?

I like to know if an immature response is the result of someone's age, and not their temperment.
You don't seem to know the difference between insult and argument.

The hole you are digging is getting deeper.

84. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95731 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:05 am

I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?
You're going to have to backpedal pretty hard to get out of this one.

85. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95663 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

1) God is real, whether you wish him not so or not.

2) The Bible was written by God through various men, none of them 'primitive'.

3) The Bible does not advocate "senseless murder."

4) The Bible does not advocate unrighteous "slavery," and all saved will one day be forever free, and salvation is free unto all men who will receive it

5) The Bible does not advocate "oppression of women

6) The Bible will be around forever, while any sinful societies that reject it will ultimately all be destroyed, sooner or later.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." - Jesus Christ, Matthew 24:35

86. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95607 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I like to know if an immature response is the result of someone's age, and not their temperment.
You don't seem to know the difference between insult and argument.

87. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95598 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 5:10 pm

People who eat meat are barbarians. That's real nice.
I always make it a point to check a commenters' profile to see if they include their age, although most seem to want to keep it private.

88. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95591 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 4:39 pm

1. If I wasn't a human. Unless it was already dead and I was starving.
2. Never tried them, but if I was starving to death...
3. I rarely eat beef, but when I do I prefer it Medium-Well.
4. ?

Not one for going off the deep end, are you?

89. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95581 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 4:10 pm

"I love animals, they're delicious." Ted Nugent
I rarely eat beef, but lean pork, chicken, and tuna are consumed on a daily basis. Mostly chicken-it tastes like T-Rex.

90. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95332 by BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 2:48 am

Which of the world's religions is the correct one?
The one you were brainwashed with, of course!
Or more likely, they are all wishful thinking mixed together with ancient ignorance and superstition.

91. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #95291 by BMMcArdle on December 7, 2007 at 10:09 pm

Ask yourself this simple question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?

Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you read what the Bible actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this book.

The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.
http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

92. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94945 by BMMcArdle on December 7, 2007 at 3:12 am

Seems like you can't prove or disprove it.
Sound familiar?

93. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94811 by BMMcArdle on December 6, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Trolled Ruht this morning, when I read the "idiot" comment.

94. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94224 by BMMcArdle on December 5, 2007 at 3:45 am

We are human beings first and foremost.

95. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94196 by BMMcArdle on December 5, 2007 at 2:18 am

Why does the Pope hold such a low opinion of the human race?
To quote Robert G. Ingersoll:
"To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds."

96. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94018 by BMMcArdle on December 4, 2007 at 3:30 pm

ADH,
The point is not that the rest of humanity is atheist, the point is that I see people as humans first, and their respective baggage second.

97. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93721 by BMMcArdle on December 4, 2007 at 2:19 am

I have a suggestion for ADH:
Stop distancing yourself from the rest of humanity by labelling yourself as a (insert religion here).

98. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92701 by BMMcArdle on December 1, 2007 at 9:04 am

Keith,
From your last post?
Also known as preaching to the choir, for lack of a better analogy.

99. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92672 by BMMcArdle on December 1, 2007 at 6:48 am

You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, how does writing it to someone else give it any value?

100. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92647 by BMMcArdle on December 1, 2007 at 3:10 am

Satanburiedfossils,
Thank you for adding Robert Green Ingersoll to my list of intellectual heroes by way of your comment HERE

Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion of the human race has ever been expressed.